How does "va'Yimachu Min ha'Aretz" apply to the world to come?

Maharsha: They were wiped out of Eretz ha'Chayim of the world to come.

What is the significance of "Lo Yadun Ruchi va'Adam l'Olam"?

Maharsha: Ruchi is the Neshamah, which should return to the body - "v'Es Ruchi Eten b'Kirbechem." It will not be judged among these people. It should say Nidon; the first Nun is omitted. We find like this in other verbs - Negifah, Nesinah...

Etz Yosef: The Neshamah, which is Atzulah (an emanation 'copied' from Hash-m's Ru'ach) conducts and judges the body when it is inside. We say that the Yetzer Tov judges (conducts) Tzadikim, and the Yetzer ha'Ra judges Resha'im. 'L'Olam' teaches that when the Ru'ach leaves the body in this world, it will never return to them at the time of Techiyas ha'Mesim.

What is the meaning of 'their Neshamos are harsh for them'?

Rashi: It burns them.

Maharsha: At the time of revival, when other Neshamos return to the bodies, these, it will be hard for their Neshamos to return, for the Neshamah became fire, and it burns the body. The body become Chashash and Kash (straw, which is flammable), and the Neshamah is fire, and burns it.

Why did Dor ha'Mabul became haughty due to the good that Hash-m bestowed on them?

Maharal: Physical desire removes man from Hash-m. The body has no connection and commonality with Him. Therefore, they saw no need to serve Him. Therefore, their punishment was in a matter that has great good. R. Yosi holds that their sin was in Zenus. They were judged in water, for Zenus is due to water (semen), which is like a flowing Mayan (stream). Therefore, Kol Maynos Tehom were opened against them. R. Yochanan said that they sinned in Rabah, so they were punished with Rabah. Zenus is called Rabah more than all other sins, for it is called Gadol - "v'Eich E'eseh ha'Ra'ah ha'Gedolah ha'Zos." Also, it is called Rabah because the physical body has a Shi'ur. They were punished via water, for nothing is more physical than water. Even though fire is harsher, they were punished via water, for they sinned due to the great good that Hash-m gave to them, and they said 'I have much - I do not need Hash-m.' We do not need rain from above - we have rivers! R. Yosi says that they went after everything that their eyes desired - - "va'Yikchu Lahem Nashim mi'Kol Asher Bacharu." Therefore, Hash-m punished them via something that resembles Galgal ha'Ayin. The eye has moisture, like water. This is why it desires all that it sees!

How do we learn from "va'Ani Hineni Mevi..."?

Maharsha: Mizrachi says that "va'Ani" is like Gam Ani. Just like you anger Me with water, I will judge you with it, and bring a Mabul.

What is the significance of "Bateihem Shalom mi'Pachad..."?

Maharsha: This discusses the flood. Two verses before this, it says "Madu'a Resha'im Yichyu." Bereishis Rabah expounds that Mazikin did not rule over them.

What do we learn from "uv'Rega She'ol Yechatu"?

Maharsha citing Rashi in Iyov: Also this teaches about their great good. They died in a moment, without afflictions.

Maharsha: Due to their great good, they were all punished and perished at once, via the Mabul.

Why did they say 'we need Hash-m only for rain - we are supplied from rivers and springs!'?

Maharsha: They said, "veha'Aretz Nasan li'Vnei Adam." This is like heretics said, that Hash-m abandoned the land. It is ours, and we get water from it.

Why did they became haughty due to Galgal ha'Ayin?

Rashi: They see that their good is complete, and they lift their eyes and are Mezaneh with what they see.

Maharsha: Here it discusses Galgal ha'Ayin, for one who closes his eye, it appears recessed. One who opens it, it is round like a wheel. Just like water surrounds the world like a wheel, and the middle is visible, so Galgal ha'Ayin, the white surrounds the black. Since they opened their eyes and revealed the white, which should have been covered if they closed their eyes from seeing evil, He judged them in water (Galgal ha'Olam) and covered the land with it. "Nivke'u Kol Maynos" - this is like Ayin.

Anaf Yosef citing Be'er Mayim Chayim (Noach 81b): There is no argument. They became haughty because Hash-m bestowed good on them, and also due to their eyes. Because they raised their eyes, they said 'we need Him only for rain...' Therefore, they were punished first with Maynos (like eyes), and afterwards "va'Arubos ha'Shamayim Niftachu", for saying 'we need Shamayim only for rain...'

How is Galgal ha'Ayin like water?

Rashi: Water comes from a source narrow like the eye.

Did only three springs remain?

Rashi: The springs of the Mabul were hot - they sinned with hot (semen), so they were punished with hot water (Amud B).

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: For evil, it says "Nivke'u Kol Maynos..."; for good, it says "va'Yisachru Maynos..."; it does not say Kol (Bereishis Rabah 33). These three were left for Refu'ah. Before the flood, the air was good, and illness was rare. After the flood, the air was ruined, and illnesses arose (ibid. 34) (NOTE: We said that until Elisha, no one ever recovered from illness. People became ill only before death (107b)! - PF) R. Yochanan mentions the springs common in Eretz Yisrael; there are also others in other lands.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 9: R. Yochanan holds that the flood did not affect Eretz Yisrael (Zevachim 113a)! Even so, changes occurred under the ground, and only these three remained in Eretz Yisrael.

What is the source that they would mate Behemos and Chayos?

Maharsha: It does not say Hishchis Kol Adam, rather, "Hishchis Kol Basar."

Margoliyos ha'Yam 14: It does not say Shiches Kol Basar (the animals did so by themselves), rather, "Hishchis Kol Basar" (man corrupted animals' ways). Once they became used to it, they did so on their own.

Here it says that Behemos and Chayos mated with other species. It says below 'the people sinned. Why were the animals punished?'!

Maharsha based on Mizrachi: The teachings disagree.

Maharsha: The Gemara implies unlike this. Surely R. Yochanan does not argue with the Beraisa below!

Maharsha: Even though Behemos and Chayos did not cling to their species, they did not sin, for they are not commanded (Daf Al ha'Daf citing Derech Sichah (Noach) - because they do not have choice). Also, 'they mated' implies that it was via people; the animals did not do so by themselves. Man was commanded about Arayos! This shows the detriment of that Dor, that even Behemos and Chayos corrupted their ways, due to man.

Iyun Yakov: The decree was sealed due to theft, which does not apply to animals. Sometimes man is saved in the merit of animals; this did not apply here, for the animals corrupted their ways. Those that clung to their own species were saved, and Noach was saved in their merit. This is unlike I wrote above (59b) that Noach was permitted to kill animals to eat them because they were saved in his merit.

What is Tushlami?

Rashi: It is a bird that to this day mates with other species.

Iyun Yakov: The wording of the Gemara is not precise. The animals saved were those that did not mate with other species! Rather, even the Tushlami that was saved (that did not mate will other species), after the flood, it mated with other species.

Why was their decree sealed due to theft?

Maharal #1: Theft is corruption of this world. It destroys the world; there is no business. Hash-m does not rush to bring a decree, for He has mercy on the world. When the Gazlan has no mercy on the world and destroys it, Hash-m does similarly.

Maharal #2: Any decree that does not come with Midas ha'Din Metuchah (stretched), it can be nullified. When it is with Din Metuchah, it is sealed and cannot be retracted. It is as if it was carried out in deed. Gezel, which is taking by force, arouses strong, harsh Din.

Maharal #3: Sealing means that the decree cannot be annulled. As long as Teshuvah is possible, it is not sealed. However, "Ki Mal'ah ha'Aretz Chamas" - Gezel of the Rabim is harsh, and there is no Teshuvah for it, therefore the decree was sealed. Daf Al ha'Daf citing Gur Aryeh - Gezel ha'Rabim, it is not known to whom to return it.

Iyun Yakov: If the decree would be due to Zenus, Hash-m could not punish by Himself, for Kedushah is only where there is a fence against Ervah. (NOTE: Hash-m can punish by Himself even in a place where Zenus is rampant, e.g. Makas Bechoros. Why does this change if the decree is due to Zenus? - PF) Androlomusiya comes to the world, and kills good and bad. Therefore, Hash-m decreed due to Gezel; the key to rain is in His hand.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tiferes Shlomo: They were Resha'im. Why was their decree sealed due to theft from Resha'im? They are like Chayos that tear and forcibly take from one another! Shem told Avraham that they were saved in the merit of feeding animals the entire year. Their mercy aroused mercy from above. Dor ha'Mabul did not have mercy on each other, so their decree was sealed.

Here it says that their decree was sealed due to theft. Rashi (Bereishis 6:13, from Bereishis Rabah 31:2) says that when there is Zenus, Androlomusiya comes to the world!

Maharsha citing Mizrachi: If not for theft, the decree would not have come against them at all. Due to the Zenus, the decree was totally encompassing.

Maharsha: Above (56b) it says "va'Tishaches ha'Aretz" - Hashchasah is always idolatry and Arayos. Since Dor ha'Mabul was punished for them, this shows that they were commanded about them. It brings a different source for Gezel. According to Mizrachi, we should learn from the Mabul that they are commanded about Gezel!

Maharsha: The primary decree was due to idolatry and Arayos. However, if not for Gezel, an individual Tzadik would have been able to save himself via Tefilah. Due to Gezel, the decree was sealed.

What stood up in front of Hash-m?

Rashi: Theft itself, like it says "he'Chamas Kam l'Mate Resha."

Maharal: Gezel prosecutes more than all sins. It appeared to stand and prosecute. Since it is taking by force, it is seen in front of Hash-m. There are three that the wall is not locked in front of them [to block vision of them, until they are punished] - one of them is Gezel (Bava Metzi'a 59a). Due to the power of Gezel, it is felt and seen more. Also, other Aveiros are only at the time of the act; Gezel remains forever [until he returns it]. Even if one wounded or killed another, what he did, he did; it does not prosecute so much. Something that must be returned, even if it is not intact (so he must pay its value), it prosecutes more.

Maharsha: Bereishis Rabah 31:5 says that Gezel is a Shaveh Perutah; Chamas is less than a Perutah. So Dor ha'Mabul used to do. Someone put out a box of lupines to sell. People took less than a Shaveh Perutah, so he could not force them in court to return it. A Bnei Noach is killed for stealing less than Shaveh Perutah! Perhaps this is why it concludes there "Yamusu v'Lo v'Chochmah", i.e. not in Chochmah of the Torah. The Chamas that they did, less than Shaveh Perutah so they will not need to return it, joined to become a big staff. Every sin makes an impression, and stands up an evil angel to testify about it.

Etz Yosef: Since Gezel is different than Chamas, how does the verse about Chamas show that there was Gezel? Since a Ben Noach is liable for less than Shaveh Perutah, it is like Mamon, and it is called Gezel.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (18): Perhaps each lupine was worth less than half a Perutah. The Torah forbids Chetzi Shi'ur, and a Ben Noach is liable for less than a Perutah, but only if it is at least half. (NOTE: Indeed, Avnei Nezer (OC 2:376) says so according to the Rambam, but many Acharonim refute him from Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 14:2. We ask in astonishment 'may one bake less than a Shi'ur?!' (Shabbos 74a) We asked why one is liable for a Shevu'ah not to eat Neveilah; Reish Lakish said, he swore about Chetzi Shi'ur. We rule like R. Yochanan, who forbids Chetzi Shi'ur mid'Oraisa; he said, the Shevu'ah was Kolel (included) Heter (Yoma 73b). He did not say that he swore about less than Chetzi Shi'ur! Many Rishonim and Acharonim explicitly forbid any amount. No one else said that Chetzi Shi'ur is precise. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Rav Heshel: If the initial Din was about a Perutah, we give a verdict even if at the end it is not worth a Perutah. Since they also transgressed Gezel (Shaveh Perutah), Hash-m was able to decree even about Chamas (less than a Perutah).

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Their sin created a prosecuting angel. It stood tall, to destroy them. "Va'Yar Hash-m Ki Rabah Ra'as ha'Adam" - it stood erect like a staff, to strike them.

Margoliyos ha'Yam (17), citing Be'er Sheva: (Chamas is forcibly taking something and paying its value.) Everyone stole from each other, so when one took an item, it was Chamas, for the victim owed him for Gezel. Alternatively, it says "Chamas" because this includes idolatry, Arayos and murder. The Zohar says that they were Moser Din (asked Hash-m to judge between them). One who does so is punished first if also he transgresses the matter.

What is the meaning of 'not from them , not from their masses, not me'Hemahem'?

Maharsha: Not from them - they are evil to Hash-m. Not from their masses - they are evil to multitudes of people. Not me'Hemahem - they are evil to themselves.

What is the meaning of 'there is not Nah in them'?

Maharal: There is not Naveh in them - they are not from Yishuv (settlement); there is no place for them

Maharsha: Because this has no meaning, we expound as if the Hei is a Ches (Etz Yosef - Aleph, Hei, Ches and Ayin are interchangeable. Margoliyos ha'Yam 20 - the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 7:2) says that Ches and Hei are interchangeable) - there is no Noach in them (the decree was even against him).

Etz Yosef: Rashi in Yechezkel said that Nah is like "va'Yinahu... Acharei Hash-m" - no one put his heart to Hash-m. Metzudos explained that it is improper to lament over them.

What do we learn from 'the decree was even against Noach, just he found grace in Hash-m's eyes'?

Maharsha: "Al Zos Yispalel Kol Chasid Elecha l'Es Metzo" - even Noach, who was a Chasid, needed Tefilah l'Es Metzo (to find grace in Hash-m's eyes). The next verse says "Atah Seser Li mi'Tzar" - Hash-m saved him via a hidden miracle (the ark); he did not merit to be saved via an open miracle.

Iyun Yakov: Also Noach was suspected of theft. To atone for this, he needed to build the ark, a need of the Rabim to save all the living. (NOTE: Hash-m has no doubts! Perhaps Iyun Yakov means that Noach was not careful lest people suspect him of theft. - PF) Alternatively, due to Androlomusiya, the decree was even on Noach.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tosefes Berachah (Shemos p.355): Chen is dearness without reason. "V'Chanosi Es Asher Achon" -- even if he is unworthy (Berachos 7a). This is why R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (Megilah 13a) expounded that Esther was green (like myrtle); Hash-m strung Chesed over her. The verse said that she was Yefas To'ar - he should say simply, this is why "Matz'ah Chen" in Achashverosh's eyes! Rather, it is because Chen is without reason.

What was the consolation that He made graves for people in the ground?

Rashi: He eradicated the way of the Resha'im.

Ramah: This is difficult. It is not connected to graves!

Maharsha: This version explains va'Yinachem to be an expression of Nechamah (consolation).

Ramah: When Hash-m decreed death on Adam ha'Rishon, He said that man would return to the earth. Had He brought a flood instead, this good bird would not have come to the world!

Maharal: It is good that they will die when they sin!

Why did Hash-m regret that He made graves for people in the ground?

Rashi: Perhaps they would have repented.

Ramah: This is difficult. This verse is before the flood!

Maharsha: We can say that He regretted the decree. Alternatively, the Torah is out of order. This version explains va'Yinachem to be an expression of regret.

Ramah: They will not be buried in graves [in Eretz Yisrael]. Rather, I will bring the flood on them! Hash-m knows everything from the beginning. It is like a Mashal to say that He regrets creating them.

Maharsha: Rashi does not explain that He regrets creating them, for it already said "Nichamti Ki Asisim."

Maharal: He should have created them from upper beings, and then they would not sin. Hash-m did not regret. Rather, based on how man acts now, it would have been better that he not be created from the land, and sin.

Why do we expound that Noach would have been different had he lived in other generations?

Maharsha: It should have said Tzadik... b'Doro. "B'Dorosav" hints to expound about other generations. Do not say that he lived through many Doros. He has only one Dor! (NOTE: It is not proper to expound about him more than anyone else, the Dor before the flood and the Dor after the flood? - PF)

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: It need not teach that there was no one in his Dor like him, for only he was saved!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 21 citing the Zohar: It should have said only "Osecha Ra'isi Tzadik Lefanai." It added "ba'Dor ha'Zeh" to teach that he was a Tzadik based on his Dor.

Since one can expound favorably, why did R. Yochanan expound unfavorably?

Iyun Yakov: The two opinions do not argue. If he did Tzedakah and Chesed in a generation of Resha'im, all the more so he would have done so in a Dor of Tzadikim! Noach walked with Hash-m - he needed supports. Had he been in the Dor of Avraham ("His'halech Lefanai"), he would not have been esteemed at all.

Etz Yosef: Noach's virtue was in a natural way. He did Mitzvos according to his body's strength and distanced from sin. His Dor were Resha'im, who did less than nature. Avraham was above nature, to break and subdue all powers of his body and desires, to be Moser Nefesh for Kedushah of his Creator at every moment.

Etz Yosef: Noach was a Tzadik, even though he had no one to learn from. R. Yochanan holds that the verse teaches that had he been at his level in Avraham's Dor, he would not have been esteemed at all.

Daf Al ha'Daf (citing Zichron Yisrael): There is an argument about whether "Tzohar" of the ark was a window, or a gem. This depends on how we expound b'Dorosav. If it is favorably, Noach was saved in his own merit, and he was allowed to see others' demise. If it is unfavorably, Noach was not saved in his own merit; "Tzohar" cannot be a window, for he was not allowed to see others' demise. (NOTE: We find that Lot was saved in the merit of Avraham, and he was not allowed to look back to see the demise of Sedom. Can we say that also Cham was saved in his own merit, and was allowed to see the world's ruin? Perhaps the window was near Noach's cell, and only he could see through it. - PF)

Maharsha: R. Yochanan holds that Tzohar is not a window, for the Mazalos did not serve during the flood, so a window would not help. "Va'Yiftach Es ha'Chalon" was not for light, only to send the dove. "Tzohar" implies for light, like Tzaharayim. The Yerushalmi in Pesachim (1:1) supports this.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing ha'Ben Yakir Li Efrayim #1: This teaches that one must obey the leader of the Dor, even if he does not appear to be such a great Tzadik, because he can request for Yisrael. Yiftach in his Dor is like Shmuel in his Dor (Rosh Hashanah 25b).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing ha'Ben Yakir Li Efrayim #2: Since the Torah praised him "Ish Tzadik Tamim Hayah b'Dorosav", he might come to pride. Therefore, they expounded it unfavorably, to show that he did not reach perfection, and he should not get haughty. (NOTE: Noach did not hear how Chachamim expounded later! Perhaps he means that Chazal teach how Noach should have expounded, to avoid pride. - PF) If a great Tzadik like Noach is in danger of pride, all the more so simple people are!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Toras Yechezkel: "Tzadik Tamim" is one that people can expound favorably or unfavorably, and he is pleased. He acts purely, without concern for what people say about him. Such a person, there will always be those who complain about him. We find that Mordechai was "u'Ratzuy l'Rov Echav" - some of the Sanhedrin separated from him (Megilah 16b). This is his praise!

Why did the fish not die?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Fish were created for the sake of man, just like animals. They not die because they did not corrupt their way - "Hishchis Kol Basar Es Darcho Al ha'Aretz."

Margoliyos ha'Yam 26 citing Tov Gitin: Harba'ah (forcing to mate) does not apply to fish (Tosfos Bava Kama 55a DH ha'Marbi'a brings this from Kil'ayim 1:6, b'Sof). (NOTE: Granted, Tahor female fish lay eggs, and the male fertilizes them without touching the female. However, Beis She'arim (YD 145) learns from Rashi (Bechoros 7b) that Tamei fish mate. If so, Harba'ah can apply! - PF)

How did the fish not die? The water was boiling!

Maharsha: It was boiling only where initially was dry land, but not where initially there was water, like it says in Zevachim (113b).

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: Perhaps it was boiling only on top; the fish lived in the depths below.

What is the significance that their bodies will float on the water?

Maharsha: They will not drown quickly. The judgment of Dor ha'Mabul was 12 months, like the judgment of Resha'im in Gehinom (Eduyos 2:10). Therefore, they will not be judged in the future, for they will be pained over the good that they lost.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We expound this, for "Kal" is singular, and "Tekulal Chelkasam" is plural.

Etz Yosef: "Kal" is an expression of a decree, like Bas Kol.

How will people take a curse from Dor ha'Mabul?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): They will say 'the One who paid (punished) Dor ha'Mabul, He will punish... [one who retracts from a sale after money was given - Etz Yosef].'

What is the meaning of 'Mefanim Derech Keramim'?

Rashi: [We will not go on] a paved path. Etz Yosef - Rashi in Iyov said that it is the good path, of Tzadikim, who are called Keramim. When Noach rebuked them, they were clearing thorns from their vineyards. They asked what is stopping Hash-m. When he said that Hash-m wants to take a bird (Mesushelach), they said that they need not go on the good path (repent).

Ramah: It is going in a beneficial way, like one who goes through a vineyard benefits from the fruits.

Maharal: They went straight, and not crooked.

Maharsha: They told Noach, you began the ruin via planting a vineyard! ) We will no longer refrain from working our vineyards.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo 15:4 p.45: This dialogue was before the flood. Noach planted a vineyard (and ruin resulted) after the flood! This requires investigation.

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m judged them like Bnei Noach, who are Chayav Misah for theft of less than Shaveh Perutah. We will not go via vineyards to return it, for it does not help for a Ben Noach to return theft. (NOTE: What does it mean via vineyards? How is this relevant? - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 28: The Yerushalmi (Yevamos 6:5) says that they had Bi'ah with intent not to have children. R"M Di Lonzano says that a woman's seed is red; it is called wine. They had Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah.

What bird does Hash-m want to take?

Rashi: Mesushelach will die before, and not be judged with you.

Maharsha: Noach warned them that the flood will come in 120 years. When the time finished, they asked what is stopping Hash-m. He said, Hash-m will take Mesushelach, and it is proper to eulogize him for seven days - perhaps they will repent.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashi (Bereishis 6:3) says that Hash-m delayed the flood for 120 years, to give to them a chance to repent. Here it says that it was lest Mesushelach be judged with them. Merafsin Igra (Bereishis, citing Rav Sheinberg) says that initially, it was to enable them to repent. After they told Noach that they will not repent, He delayed for the sake of Mesushelach.

Ramah: Mesushelach was warning them. He told them that Hash-m will not bring the flood until he takes out Noach. Margoliyos ha'Yam 29 - this is like Bava Kama 38b (NOTE: it says that Hash-m told Moshe not to strike Mo'av, for He wants to take two birds from them - Rus ha'Mo'avis and Na'amah ha'Amonis. There, 'birds' refers to people not yet born. Did Mesushelach warn them before Noach was born? The Torah implies that Hash-m decreed the flood long after Noach was born, 120 years before the flood! Bava Kama supports Maharal, who says that Hash-m wanted to take out Avraham, who would be born later! - PF)

Maharal: Avraham. Therefore, Hash-m does not kill all of you (now). They said, if so, we will not be Mefaneh Derech Keramim - rather, we can go crooked, for Hash-m will not bring the flood before Avraham is born. (NOTE: Did they not realize that Avraham can be born after the flood, from Noach's family? Perhaps they were confident that they will be able to break the ark, so Noach's family would not survive. - PF)

What is l'Ashtus?

Rashi: This is like Eshtonos - they sit serene and think evil thoughts.

Maharal: It is those who are strong, like iron bars. Sha'anan are the serene. Even so, Lapid Buz (flame of disgrace) is prepared for them when their foot, to which lack clings, will falter. Due to the good that Hash-m bestowed on Dor ha'Mabul, they sat serene and thought that no evil can come to them.

Maharsha: Due to "l'Ashtus", we say that they said that if He will bring a Mabul of water, if it is from the ground, we will cover the ground with Ashashiyos (iron beams).

What was the root of the argument between Noach and his generation?

Maharal: They said that He cannot bring a flood, for He made the world complete with matters that prevent loss of the world. Noach refuted this; Hash-m made that lack clings to the world, so it can be destroyed. It will come from the heel, where lack clings.

Iyun Yakov: They disgraced him, and said that he did not pray for his Dor because he did not have enough merit to uproot himself from the decree [just he found grace in Hash-m's eyes]. There are two other possibilities. (a) Their decree was sealed due to theft. Tefilah does not help before the theft is returned. (b) There was a decree with a Shevu'ah. Tefilah and Teshuvah do not nullify it. They said, why do you build an ark? It is so people will repent. This shows that there was not a decree with a Shevu'ah! He answered, ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu will bring a Mabul against you. Do not say that it is due to Zenus. If so, He would not be called ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu (Kedushah is only where there is a fence against Ervah). Rather, it is due to theft (NOTE: Even though Zenus was rampant, he said ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu to hint that their decree was not sealed due to Zenus. Rather, it was due to theft, therefore prayer will not help. However, how did they know that he did not pray? - PF)

What is Alisah, and how would it help against a Mabul of fire?

Rashi: It can withstand fire.

Maharsha: Perhaps this is Salamandriya. It is called Alisah because it is Oleh (rises) from a furnace after seven years. Hash-m said, He will bring a flood of water to kill everything with Ru'ach Chayim, including Alisah and Salamandriya.

Etz Yosef citing the Aruch: It is a Chayah that can extinguish fire.

What is Akev, and how would it help against a Mabul of water from above?

Maharsha and Etz Yosef citing the Aruch #1: It is something that absorbs.

Margoliyos ha'Yam citing Toras Chayim: We will put it on our heads to absorb the water.

Maharsha: "Va'Hakimosi Es Brisi Itach" - you (Noach) need a Bris, for their Giborim, one would put his heel on the Tehom. The heel would hold back the water! Therefore, he brought the water from between their heels, Midah k'Neged Midah.

Etz Yosef citing the Aruch #2: It is something that blocks rain.

What is water between your heels?

Rashi #1: It is semen.

Rashi #2: It is literally water. You cannot bury your feet in iron bars [to hold back the water]!

Maharal: Lack clings to the heels - "Hu Yeshufecha Rosh v'Atah Teshufenu Akev." It is the end (bottom) of man. There, the snake bites and kills.

Maharsha: He brought the water from between their heels, Midah k'Neged Midah, for they said that their Giborim will put their heels on the Tehom to hold back the water.

What is 'harsh like semen'?

Rashi: It is hot and thick.

Why does it say 'they sinned with hot, therefore they were punished with hot'?

Maharal: They sinned with semen, which has water and fire (for it is hot), so they were punished with water and fire (hot water).

Margoliyos ha'Yam 4: Because the water was hot, the ark needed to be tarred inside and out with Kofer (tar); Zefes (pitch) did not suffice.

What do we learn from "va'Yashoku ha'Mayim" and "va'Chamas ha'Melech Shochachah"?

Rashi: Just like the king ceased from his hot anger, the water ceased from its heat.

Why did Rav expound special matters for the seven days?

Maharsha: The prefix Hei in Shiv'as ha'Yamim implies seven known days.

Maharsha: Rashi on Chumash learned from a prior verse "l'Yamim Od Shiv'ah" - perhaps they will repent due to the eulogy of a Tzadik, for there is no longer someone to shield them - "Ki Afes Tzadik."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Here we do not learn from "l'Yamim Od Shiv'ah", for perhaps the seven days complete the 120 years. We learn from "l'Shiv'as ha'Yamim", for it does not say that it was at the end of 120 years.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim : We can expound that Hash-m changed the orders of Bereishis, and He gave to them a taste of the world to come, only from l'Shiv'as ha'Yamim, for the seven days of creation are called Shiv'as ha'Yamim - "ka'Or Shiv'as ha'Yamim." Therefore, we expound all of them from this verse. However, Bereishis Rabah expounds that Hash-m delayed the seven days of Aveilus of Mesushelach, and that He mourned seven days over His world before He brought the flood, from l'Shiv'as ha'Yamim; it does not expound more. Why did it not learn from "l'Yamim Od Shiv'ah" written earlier?

Why does eulogy of a Tzadik hold back punishments?

Maharal #1: Eulogy is the honor of a Tzadik. Had the flood come right after he died, his honor would have been nullified. This Perush is primary.

Maharal #2: Their pain over the loss of the Tzadik sufficed; Hash-m does not bring affliction on affliction. Therefore, once the [week of] eulogies ended, the flood came.

Iyun Yakov: The Mes is present at the time of eulogy (Shabbos 153a). This delays the punishment.

What is the significance of the sun rising in the west and setting in the east?

Maharal: The existence of the world is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Loss of the world is opposite. Do not ask how this is possible. It was a miracle, just like the sun stopping in Giv'on.

Maharsha: Astronomers say that the sun goes from west to east in 365 days, just every day Galgal ha'Mazalos brings all seven Kochevei Lechet (the sun, moon and five closest plants) from east to west in one day and night. During the entire year of the Mabul, Galgal ha'Mazalos did not serve, so they went from west to east. The difference between day and night was not recognized. (NOTE: It seems that all Meforshim agree that this discusses the year of the flood. Since "l'Shiv'as ha'Yamim" teaches about changing Seder Ma'ase Bereishis, there is no source to say that it refers to the seven days before the flood. - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Chachmei Yisrael and Chachmei Nochrim agree that at night, the sun goes from west to east (they argue about whether it goes above the Raki'a, or below the ground - Pesachim 94b). During the entire year of the Mabul, Galgal ha'Mazalos did not serve, so they went from west to east. (NOTE: He does not explain why the sun was seen rising in the west and setting in the east, nor how it returned from east to west each day. - PF)

What is the meaning of 'Hashem fixed for them a long time, and then a short time?

Rashi: First Hash-m said that man's years will be 120 years [until the flood]. When the time passed and they did not repent, He added a short time (seven days).

Maharsha: The extra seven days were to warn those who were born during the 120 years. (NOTE: Why was this needed? Did Noach warn them only at the beginning of the 120 years, but not during the 120 years?! - PF)

What is the significance of giving to them a taste of the world to come?

Maharal: This was only for Dor ha'Mabul, for they were totally dissolved from the land - "Emcheh Es ha'Adam." They received the world to come in this world, so nothing remained for them for the world to come. This does not apply to others punished in this world. They received a taste for seven days, for the world was created in seven days.

Maharsha: Other sinners, e.g. Anshei Sedom, have no share in the world to come. They stand in judgment to see the level of the world to come, and to be pained [that they lost it] - "Yir'u va'Yavoshu." Dor ha'Mabul will not stand in judgment, therefore Hash-m gave to them a taste of the world to come, so they will be pained during the year that they floated on the water.

Iyun Yakov: He let them taste the seventh day (Shabbos), which is a taste of the world to come.

What is an animal that had not sinned?

Rashi: It was intimate only with its mate.

Maharsha: This is not precise. Animals do not have fixed mates! Rather, they mated only with their species. So Rashi explained in Chumash.

Iyun Yakov: We infer from "Ish v'Ishto" (that it was intimate only with its mate). It should have said Zachar v'Nekevah!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 6, citing Be'er Sheva: It says in Zevachim (116a) that No'ach passed the animals in front of the ark; if the ark accepted, he knew that it was Tahor. This does not mean Tahor that [Yisrael] may eat it, rather, it did not sin. Zohar Chadash (Noach 22a) says that if a wooden ark is so, openings of Shamayim and those who guard them, and those who guard the Mishmaros and Kisei ha'Kavod, all the more so they are authorized to absorb those who did not sin and expel sinners! (NOTE: Maharsha there challenges our text in Zevachim. He suggests that the text should discuss species permitted to Yisrael; Eizehu Mekoman brings such a text. - PF)

Here, Rav Chisda holds that Noach passed the animals in front of the ark, and it accepted only those that had not sinned; R. Avahu holds that the animals that had not sinned came by themselves. Rashi in Chumash combined these! He explained that they came by themselves, and those that the ark accepted...!

Maharsha: R. Avahu says 'from those that came by themselves', i.e. many came; the ark accepted two of each species that had not sinned. However, Rashi in Zevachim (116a) implies that R. Avahu holds that all that came by themselves, they had not sinned.

Iyun Yakov: Rashi in Chumash learned from "mi'Kol Tavi El ha'Tevah" that Noach selected which animals to take, and "Ba'u" implies that they came by themselves. First, Noach brought animals - even those that sinned. The ark did not accept them. After, innocent animals came, and Noach chose what he wanted from them.

What is Mavligah?

Rashi: It is wood.

Maharsha: It is called Gofer due to "Gafris va'Melach."

Etz Yosef: The Aruch says that it is Arda. Mosif ha'Aruch says that this is a species of cedar (Rosh Hashanah 23). Also Gulamish is a species of cedar.

What is the meaning of 'this way it stands'?

Margoliyos ha'Yam 7 citing Ramah: If it were wide at the top like at the bottom, it would topple.

What is the significance of the three floors of the ark?

Maharal: The ark resembled this world, which has three levels. Gems illuminated, and not lamps, just like this world does not use a lamp. Surely they also used lamps, just there was a light source other than lamps.

Maharsha: Presumably, it was divided based on importance of the levels.

Iyun Yakov: One level was for people, even though there were only eight people! The top level housed also the food, and we say below that the Tahor birds were with Noach. (NOTE: The ark narrowed to one Amah on top (Bereishis 6:16, Rashi). If so, the volume of the top floor was only half of the bottom floor, or a third, according to Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, that it was one Amah long at the top, and one Tefach wide. Why was the entire bottom floor needed for Zevel - the food was far less than a half or third of its size, for there were 14 of each species of Tahor birds! (There are many thousands of Minim of Tahor birds, for there are 800 species of Tahor Chagavim, and birds without number (Yerushalmi Ta'anis 4:5, Eichah Rabah Pesichah 34), and only 24 species are Temei'im! If he explains like the Vilna Gaon (Kol Eliyahu Parshas Noach) that Noach brought for each species the amount it can swallow at once, and Hash-m blessed the food, he should have said so! Without such a miracle, it is more reasonable to say that initially the bottom floor was for food, and over the course of the year it was replaced by Zevel! - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 8: It is not difficult for man to live with birds.

What is the source that the raven gave an irrefutable argument?

Maharsha: Mizrachi says that we learn from "Yatzo va'Shov."

Maharsha: Our Gemara does not say so. Also, it says also about the dove "va'Teshev"!

Maharsha #1: It did not do its Shelichus at all. It stayed by the ark.

Iyun Yakov: The second half of 'Hashem hates me, and you hate me' is not a proper claim. Man should hate one whom Hash-m hates! The primary claim was, if I will die via the Shelichus, my species will not endure.

Margoliyos ha'Yam: Even though a raven does not feed its children - "li'Vnei Orev Asher Yikra'u", a raven wants children (Kesuvos 49b); it wants the species to endure.

Maharsha #2: Noach did not send it a second time, unlike the dove, which he sent again after it returned. We infer that the raven gave a reason why it will not do the Shelichus.

Did the raven say these words?

Ramah: It was not true speech, rather, the way species talk with each other. A Chacham understands it, like it says about R. Yochanan ben Zakai (Bava Basra 134a - he understood speech of Shedim, date trees and angels), and all the more so Noach, who was a Chacham and Navi. (NOTE: Midrash Zuta (Koheles 9:14) explains "Ish Misken Chacham" to be Noach. Tanchuma Noach 2 explains "v'Loke'ach Nefashos Chacham" to discuss Noach.

Anaf Yosef citing Yefe To'ar: We can say that in olden times, Ba'alei Chayim had understanding. Their speech was in their chirping language, like they speak to each other. Noach understood it with his Chochmah, like Shlomo understood their language.

Maharal: No. Its intent (if it will die, ravens will cease from the world) is called Dibur. Even though it lacks intellect, Hash-m gave a general Shemirah to guard the species; therefore, it did not want to go. People say that nature is a Chacham, even though it does not have Sechel. Hash-m made it work in a proper order.

Anaf Yosef citing Be'er Mayim Chayim (Noach 87a) #1: It did not say so, even in its language. Noach understood why it did not do its Shelichus, and the refutation of its intent.

Anaf Yosef citing Be'er Mayim Chayim (Noach 87a) #2: "Va'Yetzei Yatzo va'Shov Ad Yevoshes ha'Mayim" - it returned to Noach with a claim, that it is improper to leave the ark until the water is totally dry and the world returns to like it was, lest the Sar of heat or of cold strike me.

Margoliyos ha'Yam 9, citing Be'er Sheva: The Gemara says what the raven wanted to say. Or, it is a Mashal, what it could have said. So R. Yonah said, 'the Torah girds sackcloth...' is a Mashal for what the Torah could say.

Why did it say 'if the Sar of heat or of cold will strike me'?

Maharsha: This was in Tishrei according to R. Eliezer, and in Nisan according to R. Yehoshua. Sometimes it is hot then, and sometimes cold.

Iyun Yakov: The raven said only 'of heat' or 'of cold.' The Gemara mentioned both due to the argument. (NOTE: The tops of the mountains were on the first of the 10th month, and he sent the raven 40 days later (Bereishis 8:5-7). According to R. Eliezer, this was Elul 11 (Rashi) or Av 11 (Targum Yonason) - the concern was for heat. According to R. Yehoshua, this was six months later, so the concern was for cold. Why did Maharsha say that it was Tishrei or Nisan? - PF)

Margoliyos ha'Yam 10 citing Metzudas David: Perhaps Noach will say that he sent a species that has only two in the ark, for Hash-m's Hashgachah will protect it. Therefore, it mentioned Sar of heat or of cold, for these are not bi'Ydei Shamayim (Kesuvos 30a). Noach did not refute this claim!

Did the raven suspect that Noach wants to take its mate? It has no Sechel!

Maharal #1: Surely it did not suspect this! Rather, its desire was for its mate, and people project their desires onto others, so it is as if it suspected that Noach desires its mate

Maharal #2: Outside the ark was destruction; existence was only in the ark. It did not want to separate from existence. Man has a certain connection to animals - Adam was Ba on all of them (Yevamos 63a), just he was not satisfied until Chavah. As long as both ravens were in the ark, they were connected in physicality and form. If the male raven would leave, Noach would have connection to the female. Noach said that it thought so due to its evil; if not, it would not think about Chibur, for it is not time for Chibur!

Iyun Yakov: It claimed that Noach wants to had Bi'ah with it, and via this he will perpetuate the species. However, Bechoros 8a says that Bi'ah of man and bird cannot produce children, for they do not have Bi'ah in the same position)! Noach's answer (I was forbidden even to my wife) refuted his claim.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Derech Suchah (2 Noach 8:7): It transgressed having Bi'ah in the ark - its thoughts were about such matters.

Why did Noach call the raven a Rasha?

Maharal: Everything is drawn after the proper order. When the world is being destroyed, it is improper to engage in reproduction. This is why Chazal forbade an Avel to have relations! Only the raven, dog and Cham had Bi'ah in the ark, for they are far from the creations and Hash-m's order. The raven is cruel, even to its children (Eruvin 21b) - "li'Vnei Orev Asher Yikra'u", and all the more so to others. It has no connection to other beings. Also dogs are hated and distanced from others. Cham was prepared to be distanced; later, his seed was cursed and distanced from people. Since the raven distanced and did not accept the order, it is a Rasha. If not, it would have done the Shelichus! (NOTE: Maharal explained that due to Shemirah, it did not want to go! Perhaps if not for desire for its mate, doing the Shelichus to help all the creations in the ark would have overridden its natural Shemirah. - PF)

Maharsha: It is because it transgressed, and had Bi'ah in the ark. It is the most wanton in Arayos, and Chazal attributed all Temei'im to it - the Zarzir (starling) does not dwell with the raven for no reason; it is the same species (Bava Kama 92b; "ha'Orev l'Minehu" includes it). The dove is the most distanced from Arayos. Had the Torah not been given to man, we would [have had to] learn [distancing from] Arayos from a dove - it has Bi'ah only with its mate (Eruvin 100b). All Tehorim are attributed to it - "Yonasi Samasi", 'Chachamim never permitted a raven, or forbade a dove' (above, 100a). Noach sent the raven, because it is a Rasha, and one need not be concerned for it as much as other species! Also, your 'wife' is already pregnant from you, so even if you would die from the Shelichus, ravens will not become extinct! (NOTE: Even if she was visibly pregnant, how did Noach know that she is pregnant with a male? Perhaps he knew via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, or he relied on probability (if ravens normally lay many eggs, almost surely at least one of them is a male) or on Hashgachah (Hash-m will cause her to give birth to a male to sustain the species. - PF)

Why was Bi'ah forbidden in the ark?

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar #1: When Hash-m is engaged in destroying the world, they should not engage in building, like it says in Tanchuma.

Etz Yosef citing Yefe To'ar #2: When the world is in pain, especially pain of death, they should not [engage in reproduction]. Therefore, Bnei Noach were forbidden, even though they did not have children yet.

What do we learn from "Atah u'Vanecha v'Ishtecha u'Nshei Vanecha" and "Atah v'Ishtecha u'Vanecha u'Nshei Vanecha"?

Etz Yosef: The men were commanded to enter by themselves, and the women by themselves. This hints that Bi'ah is forbidden. They were commanded to leave as couples, to teach that Bi'ah was permitted. Noach left with his sons, for he did not want to reproduce for a curse (perhaps another flood will kill his new descendants), until Hash-m swore not to bring another flood (Bereishis Rabah 34). Noach did not transgress Hash-m's command. Hash-m commanded Peru u'Rvu only later; initially , He just permitted it.

What is the source that Cham [and the dog and raven] had Bi'ah in the ark?

Anaf Yosef citing Ramas Shmuel: "Va'Yizkor Elokim Es Noach v'Es Kol ha'Chayah v'Es Kol ha'Behemah" - why did it not mention his sons? Rather, one of them had Bi'ah in the ark. Surely it was Cham, for his skin was stricken. The verse did not mention birds, for one of them had Bi'ah. Surely it was the raven, for we find that it is different - it spits semen (into the female's mouth). It says ha'Chayah and ha'Behemah - the known ones, to exclude a dog, for it is an argument whether it is a Chayah or Behemah. (NOTE: Each opinion holds that there is no Safek about a dog! Before their argument, how would one understand the verse? Also, it is more reasonable to exclude a Kvi, which in some ways is not like a Chayah or Behemah (Bikurim 2:8)! - PF)

Anaf Yosef citing Ahavas Yehonason: This was Midah k'Neged Midah. During the Mabul, the Mazalos did not serve, and also the sun did not run its course. Scientists say that black skin in man is due to the sun. Cham wanted his son to be white, so he had Bi'ah [b'Isur] when the Mazalos and sun ceased. He was punished Midah k'Neged Midah, and his seed is black.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Derech Sichah (2 Noach 8:7): "Va'Yihyu Vnei Noach ha'Yotze'im Min ha'Tevah Shem v'Cham va'Yafes v'Cham Hu Avi Kena'an" (Bereishis 9:18) teaches that Cham was already Kena'an's father when he left the ark. (NOTE: Rashi explains that Kena'an was Cham's fourth son, like Bereishis 10:6 implies. He explains that the above verse "v'Cham Hu Avi Kena'an" helps explain why Noach cursed Kena'an. - PF)

Why were they punished for having Bi'ah in the ark?

Etz Yosef: There was great Kedushah in the ark, like the Zohar says.

What is the meaning of 'dogs are normally tied'?

Ramah #1: They are normally tied on a chain or other matter, lest they damage.

Ramah #2: It is stuck to the female after Bi'ah.

Iyun Yakov: Dogs were punished more than the others, for they are brazen - "veha'Kelavim Azei Nefesh." Also Yisrael are brazen among the nations. Therefore, if he has Bi'as Isur, it is tied to him like a dog, like it says in Avodah Zarah (5a). (NOTE: The Gemara said so about any Aveirah, not only Bi'as Isur. - PF)

How was Cham's skin stricken?

Rashi: Kush (who is black) was born to him. Maharsha - Kush was his first son.

Etz Yosef citing Gevul Binyamin: This is difficult. The Gemara's words imply that Cham's own skin was stricken! Etz Yosef - it seems that Rashi means that also Kush was born to him. So a Midrash says - a man minted his coin in the king's tent. The king decreed to blacken his face and disqualify his coin. So Cham, the dog and raven had Bi'ah in the ark, and Cham came out as black as coal (Bereishis Rabah 36). Yefe To'ar says, Kush (who is black) descended from him - this is like disqualifying his coin.

How does "va'Yshalach Es ha'Yonah me'Ito" teach that it is good for Tahor birds to be near Tzadikim?

Rashi: It says me'Ito regarding the dove, but not regarding the raven. It is beneficial for them to be near Tzadikim. They recognize Tzadikim, like we say elsewhere.

Iyun Yakov: This is like it says (Bava Kama 92b) 'a bad date tree strolls among barren trees... Anything connected to something Tahor is Tahor.'

Maharsha: Even though we said that the top floor was for people, it was primarily for people, and also for those who accompany them.

Did the dove truly say that it prefers bitter food...?

Maharal: Many living beings have particular good Midos, even though they do not have Da'as. [Had the Torah not been given to man], we would [have had to] learn [distancing from] theft from ants, Tzeni'us (modesty) from cats, [distancing from] Arayos from doves (Eruvin 100b). Even though Noach gave to the dove better food than an olive leaf, it preferred food directly from Hash-m. Food via man is as if it does not exist, when the receiver's life depends on man. Chazal said that one who depends on another's table, it is dark for him. It is as if he has no existence. Food from Hash-m, even if it is bitter (which shows lack), is better. Even though Hash-m put all living beings under man, the dove chose not to be under man. (NOTE: Perhaps he refers to in the ark. Normally, Chayos, fish and wild birds are not under man! - PF)

Maharsha: In Birkas ha'Mazon, we request that Hash-m not make us dependent on 'gifts of man, rather, on Your full hand... we should not be ashamed.' i.e. if we do not need gifts of man, we will not be ashamed. We proved that "Taraf" is an expression of food from "Hatrifeni Lechem Chuki" (and not from "Teref Nasan li'Yre'av" or "vi'Hi Teref b'Veisi"), for that verse says also "Reish va'Osher Al Titen Li" - do not make me poor, and ashamed because I need people's gifts, nor rich, and others will be shamed that they need my gifts. It took a leaf, and not fruit, to hint that it is better to subsist minimally from Hash-m, than to seek excess from people - 'make your Shabbos like a weekday, and do not take [gifts or loans] from people' (Shabbos 118b).

Iyun Yakov: It is better to be dependent on Hash-m, for His mercy is great. Etz Yosef - man should learn from it, that it is better to subsist minimally from one's own toil, than to take from others. The dove had abundant food in the ark via others, but it preferred bitter food via itself. All the more so man, who was created in Tzelem Elokim, should trust in His Creator and distance from benefit from people!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 19: Tosfos (Eruvin 18b) infers that olive trees are bitter. People questioned the Shach (YD 96:20), who brought from here that olives are sharp. I say that Tosfos needed to explain so, for the dove brought a leaf, and not an olive. (NOTE: Perhaps only the leaves are bitter, but not the tree itself! And according to Tosfos, is there any source for olives themselves? Perhaps Tosfos means that the entire tree, including leaves and olives, is bitter. - PF) Above (24a), we say that Chachamim of Bavel are as bitter to each other in Halachah as olives.

What do we learn from '"l'Mishpechoseihem Yatz'u Min ha'Tevah", but not them'?

Rashi: Each family was by itself. They did not all eat from a common trough. Rather, they dwelled as families.

Ramah: Not one animal was missing, but they did not leave healthy, for they had great pain being dependent on people for food. Even though the Torah was not written until Moshe, they had a tradition that so it was. Alternatively, Avraham had the Torah, just he was not commanded.

Maharsha: Each left with its species and mate [to reproduce], like Noach was commanded "Tzei Atah v'Ishtecha" but the people did not.

Iyun Yakov: Noach did not leave the way he was commanded, for he did not want to engage in reproduction until Hash-m swore not to bring another flood.

Iyun Yakov: Tahor species left with Tahor species, and Temei'im with Temei'im. This is like we say, anything connected to [something] Tahor is Tahor; anything connected to Tamei is Tamei. The Zarzir does not dwell with the raven without reason (it is the same species - Bava Kama 92b)/ 'But not them' - Noach and his sons left with Cham, a Rasha (he had Bi'ah in the ark).

Etz Yosef, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ya'avetz: Any creature without bones cannot last 12 months (Chulin 58a). Such species, their descendants left the ark, but not they themselves. Only beings that live more than a year were forbidden to have Bi'ah in the ark.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Meshech Chochmah: Why was the flood a whole year? Hash-m could have killed everyone in a moment! "Ki Hishchis Kol Basar Es Darko Al ha'Aretz" - all beings' ways were corrupted to love evil and theft. Hash-m's Chochmah decreed that 12 months were needed to accustom them to minimal food via man, and they will not tear. They left the ark like totally different creations.

What is the question 'how did you do?'

Rashi: How did you fulfill the desire of each species?

Ramah: Were also you weak when you left?

Maharsha: Why didn't also you leave as couples [like the animals did], like Hash-m commanded you? It says "va'Yetzei Noach u'Vanav..."! Either Eliezer is Og, like a Midrash says (he survived the flood and saw them leave), or he saw Torah verses. (NOTE: Even if Og saw them leave, how did he know what Hash-m commanded them? - PF) He learned Torah, like we say "Damesek" - he was Doleh u'Mashkeh from his master's Torah to others (Rashi Bereishis 15:2, from Yoma 28b). Shem answered, due to our great pain and distraction in the ark, we left like we were in the ark, when Bi'ah was forbidden.

Iyun Yakov: Why did you leave together with Cham, a Rasha? Shem answered, we had great pain in the ark. This atoned; all were considered Tzadikim.

What is the meaning of 'a fever nourishes no less than six and no more than 12'?

Rashi: The lightest fever can nourish for six days; the Choleh can live without eating. No fever can nourish for more than 12 days, without the Choleh eating or drinking. Some texts say 'no less than six months and no more than 12 months'; this refers to the lion. This is wrong.

Anaf Yosef citing Toras Chayim: This is like Rashi wrote on Chumash, that Noach was coughing up blood amidst toil of the animals. Some say that he was late giving to the lion, and it hit him - "Hen Tzadik ba'Aretz Yeshulam." What is the source that it was the lion, and not a bear or wolf? It seems that since the lion had a fever, and we do not know how long it feeds him, we can say that also Noach was unsure. He came to feed it on day seven, and it did not want to eat, for the fever still fed it. He did not come again until day nine or 10; he did not know that the fever fed it only until the eighth. 'A fever nourishes no less...' applies to a lion.

Ramah: We must explain 'no less than six months and no more than 12 months', for the lion was in the ark a full year! The flood was 12 months and 11 days; 'no more than 12 months' means less than 13 months. (NOTE: Ramah understands 'a fever fed the lion' the entire time it was in the ark. I do not know his source. - PF)

What is Avarshinah?

Rashi: In Tanach it is called Chol. It is a species of bird that never dies.

Does the Avarshinah live forever due to Noach's Berachah?

Maharal: No. There is no Chidush in Ma'ase Bereishis! Rather, it explains why this bird lives long. It has humility and lowliness. One who is lowly has no opposition; people love and bless him. Hating people removes a person from the world. The nature of living beings is to pursue food. This bird refrained due to lowliness and reluctance to burden the man over it. Anyone with this Midah is proper to endure. Death and loss are due to opposition.

Maharsha: Our Gemara implies so. However, Bereishis Rabah (19:5) says that Chavah gave all living beings to eat from Eitz ha'Da'as, except for the Chol bird, therefore it lives 1000 years, and rejuvenates and lives...

Etz Yosef citing Toras Chayim: Even though it did not eat from Eitz ha'Da'as, if not for Noach's Berachah, it would have died, for Hash-m decreed to kill Dor ha'Mabul - people, animals and birds. The decree was even on Noach, just he found grace in Hash-m's eyes! The beings that entered the ark lived in his merit, therefore he was allowed to kill and eat them, like the Ramban wrote.

Why did Shem ask Eliezer 'how did you fight the kings of the east and west?'

Maharsha: We expound that Avraham's 318 soldiers were really just Eliezer (this is his name's Gematriya). He asked about fighting the four kings, who defeated the five kings. (NOTE: Amrafel was Melech Bavel, which is in the east. The Torah mentions battles of the four kings on their way to Eretz Yisrael. This implies that the three kings with him were near him! Perhaps after they defeated the five kings, they were considered also kings of the conquered cities, in Eretz Yisrael (the west). - PF)

Since Eliezer said "Ne'um Hash-m l'Adoni...", why does it begin "Mizmor l'David"?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Avraham fought to save Lot. It says "Shtei Venosecha ha'Nimtza'os", and "Matzasi David Avdi" - David was found via saving Lot (for he comes from Rus, who descends from Lot's daughter).

Why does it say "Mi He'ir mi'Mizrach"?

Rashi: This is Avraham, who came from Aram Naharayim, which is in the east - "Min Aram Yancheni Balak..."

What is the source that Avraham threw earth, and it turned into swords, and he threw straw, and it turned into arrows?

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: It says "Yiten ke'Afar Charbo k'Kash Nidaf Kashto." If so, how did he defeat the four kings?! Rather, like the amount of earth that he threw, so became swords. Like the amount of straw that he threw, so became arrows.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing No'am Megadim: It should have said Yiten Afar k'Charbo! Rather, Avraham's wars and salvations were based on his Midos and merits. His conduct was "Anochi Afar va'Efer" - this was his sword!

What is the significance of Gam Zu l'Tovah?

Maharsha: Even what appears to everyone to be bad, also this is for the good. This is like it says in Nidah (31a) "Oseh Nifla'os Levado" - even the one for whom miracles are done, he does not know! A parable - two people wanted to go on a business voyage. One could not go due to a thorn [in his foot, and he blasphemed. Later, he heard that the ship sank and his colleague died, so he thanked Hash-m].

According to one text in Ta'anis 21a, Nachum knew that they replaced his gems with earth. How did he bring it to the Kaiser? One may not rely on a miracle!

Margoliyos ha'Yam 2 citing the Maharal's brother: He knew that all that Hash-m does is for the good. Surely Hash-m knew that the Kaiser would not be pleased with the gems - does the Kaiser's house lack anything?! Rather, Hash-m arranged that it be switched with earth, to show that lowliness is accepted in front of the king. Nachum told the king that our patriarch Avraham did not rule forcefully. He said "Anochi Afar va'Efer"! Therefore, people willingly accepted him as their king. He suggested that Kaiser do the same. Kaiser said, let us go to Medinah Plonis, and we will see if your words are fulfilled. They were; the residents accepted his kingship. The ones who stole Nachum's gems came to the king and said that their Chochmah will conquer other Medinos under Kaiser's authority. They did not succeed; he killed them.